Dataset Information

Deliberation, Dissent, and Distrust: Understanding distinct drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the availability of safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, a significant proportion of the American public remains unvaccinated and does not appear immediately interested in receiving the vaccine.

Methods

In this study, we analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, a biweekly cross-sectional survey of U.S. households. We estimated the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy across states and nationally and assessed the predictors of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rejection. Additionally, we examined the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy, grouped into thematic categories.

Results

A total of 459,235 participants were surveyed from January 6 to March 29, 2021. While vaccine uptake increased from 7.7 to 47 percent, vaccine hesitancy rates remained relatively fixed: overall, 10.2 percent reported that they would probably not get a vaccine, and 8.2 percent would definitely not get a vaccine. Income, education, and state political leaning strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. However, while both female sex and Black race were factors predicting hesitancy, among those who were hesitant, these same characteristics predicted vaccine reluctance rather than rejection. Those who expressed reluctance invoked mostly "deliberative" reasons while those who rejected the vaccine were also likely to invoke reasons of "dissent" and "distrust".

Conclusion

Vaccine hesitancy comprises a sizable proportion of the population and is large enough to threaten achieving herd immunity. Distinct subgroups of hesitancy have distinctive socio-demographic associations as well as cognitive and affective predilections. Segmented public health solutions are needed to target interventions and optimize vaccine uptake.

SUBMITTER: Tram KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406882 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Routine childhood vaccination is declining in some regions of the United States due to vaccine hesitancy, which risks the resurgence of many infectious diseases with public health and economic consequences. There are ongoing policy debates on the state and national level, including legislation around nonmedical (personal-belief) exemptions for childhood vaccination and possibly a special government commission on vaccine safety, which may affect vaccine coverage.To estimate the number of measles cases in US children and the associated economic costs under scenarios of different levels of vaccine hesitancy, using the case example of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and measles.Publicly available data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to simulate county-level MMR vaccination coverage in children (age 2-11 years) in the United States. A stochastic mathematical model was adapted for infectious disease transmission that estimated a distribution for outbreak size as it relates to vaccine coverage. Economic costs per measles case were obtained from the literature. The predicted effects of increasing the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy as well as the removal of nonmedical exemptions were estimated. The model was calibrated to annual measles cases in US children over recent years, and the model prediction was validated using an independent data set from England and Wales.Annual measles cases in the United States and the associated public sector costs.A 5% decline in MMR vaccine coverage in the United States would result in an estimated 3-fold increase in measles cases for children aged 2 to 11 years nationally every year, with an additional $2.1 million in public sector costs. The numbers would be substantially higher if unvaccinated infants, adolescents, and adult populations were also considered. There was variation around these estimates due to the stochastic elements of measles importation and sensitivity of some model inputs, although the trend was robust.This analysis predicts that even minor reductions in childhood vaccination, driven by vaccine hesitancy (nonmedical and personal belief exemptions), will have substantial public health and economic consequences. The results support an urgent need to address vaccine hesitancy in policy dialogues at the state and national level, with consideration of removing personal belief exemptions of childhood vaccination.

Project description:The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

Project description:AimWithin the context of increasing mental distress noted since the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic, the study aims at analysing the relationship between mental health, vaccine distrust and vaccine hesitancy in South Africa.Subject and methodsThe study uses nationally representative panel data of 3241 individuals interviewed prior to and during the COVID19 pandemic. The study uses a range of regression techniques including logit, mediation and gradient-boosted causal mediation models to identify the causal relationship while accounting for selection bias.ResultsThe results of multivariate logit regression reveal that vaccine distrust is the most important predictor of vaccine hesitancy [Coeff: 3.420, CI 3.122, 3.717]. Mental distress is not found to be a significant driver in a fully specified logit model, pointing to the need to analyse the pathways through which mental distress impacts vaccine hesitancy. The mediation regression undertaken for this purpose finds that the mental distress has a positive and significant association with vaccine distrust [Coeff: 0.027, CI: 0.0029, 0.052]. The increased vaccine distrust in turn results in increased vaccine hesitancy [Coeff: 0.661, CI: 0.611, 0.711]. The results of mediation regression therefore indicate strong and significant mediation effects, whereby mental health effects vaccine hesitancy through the mediating variable of vaccine distrust. These results are robust to the gradient boosted causal mediation model which establishes strong and significant indirect effects [Coeff: 0.015, CI: 0.01, 0.019], whereby mental health effects vaccine hesitancy through the mediating variable of vaccine distrust.ConclusionThe study concludes that mental health impacts on vaccine intention through the mediating role of vaccine distrust. The findings indicate that individuals at high risk of depression are more concerned regarding the safety of vaccines, which in turn feeds into vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, depressive symptoms impact on vaccine hesitancy through the mediating factor of vaccine distrust.

Project description:To investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, namely, China and the United States (U.S.). A cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the United States, and discrete choice experiments, as well as Likert scales, were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to vaccination acceptance. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries. A total of 9077 (5375 and 3702 from China and the United States, respectively) respondents completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% of respondents from China positively accepted the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% of respondents from the United States positively accepted it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the U.S. respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the United States attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint, that the cost of vaccination covered the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Additionally, respondents from China tended to be much more concerned about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs. 6.12%) and have a lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19. Although the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between these countries were observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in the two countries, vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.